Conversation avec #socialweb

(21:47:25) Le sujet de #socialweb est : http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTeleconferences
(21:51:17) AdamB [adam.c.boy@97.45.115.252] a rejoint le salon.
(21:53:58) Adam [adam.c.boy@97.42.178.65] a rejoint le salon.
(21:54:10) BenG [benjie.ngu@81.48.44.213] a rejoint le salon.
(21:54:19) AdamB a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(21:54:20) ***BenG waves
(21:54:52) ***tpa waves back
(21:55:57) alepas [alepas@140.203.155.13] a rejoint le salon.
(21:56:55) Zakim [rrs-bridgg@128.30.52.30] a rejoint le salon.
(21:58:20) FabGandon: Zakim, what conference do you see?
(21:58:20) Zakim: I don't understand your question, FabGandon.
(21:58:36) FabGandon: Zakim, what conferences do you see?
(21:58:36) Zakim: I see INC_(Social Web)4:00PM, WAI_CG()2:30PM, IA_WebAPI(DOM3)2:30PM active
(21:58:39) Zakim: also scheduled at this time are DIG_TAMI()3:00PM, WS_XMLP()3:00PM
(21:59:00) DKA [newbie@79.67.202.74] a rejoint le salon.
(21:59:43) alberto [alberto@89.128.167.236] a rejoint le salon.
(21:59:54) FabGandon: Zakim, this is INC_
(21:59:54) Zakim: ok, FabGandon; that matches INC_(Social Web)4:00PM
(21:59:56) CAP6229 [ircap@87.217.187.239] a rejoint le salon.
(22:00:08) Zakim: +??P6
(22:00:19) DKA: zakim, ??p6 is DKA
(22:00:19) Zakim: +DKA; got it
(22:00:21) Zakim: +??P9
(22:00:24) DKA: zakim, mute dk
(22:00:24) FabGandon: Zakim, who is on the phone?
(22:00:24) Zakim: DKA should now be muted
(22:00:25) Zakim: On the phone I see +1.314.683.aabb, +49.238.aaaa, ??P0, DKA (muted), ??P9
(22:00:33) Zakim: + +39.011.aadd
(22:00:41) Zakim: + +95201aaee
(22:00:42) Zakim: -??P9
(22:00:50) CAP6229 est désormais connu sous le nom de JorgeG
(22:00:55) libby [libby@92.237.82.160] a rejoint le salon.
(22:01:04) DKA: zakim, unmute dka
(22:01:04) Zakim: DKA should no longer be muted
(22:01:08) Zakim: + +49.621.629.aaff
(22:01:10) FabGandon: Zakim, who is on the phone?
(22:01:10) Zakim: On the phone I see +1.314.683.aabb, +49.238.aaaa, ??P0, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff
(22:01:18) Zakim: + +1.207.370.aagg
(22:01:25) Zakim: +Gez_Lemon
(22:01:47) Zakim: +??P13
(22:02:04) Zakim: + +1.425.865.aahh
(22:02:05) alepas: Zakim: ??p13 is me
(22:02:11) Zakim: + +49.173.515.aaii
(22:02:14) Zakim: +Libby_Miller
(22:02:21) alberto a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: alberto)
(22:02:23) alepas: Zakim, ??p13 is me
(22:02:23) Zakim: +alepas; got it
(22:02:26) boton a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:02:30) libby: wow, zakim still knows me
(22:02:34) FabGandon: Zakim, who is on the phone?
(22:02:34) Zakim: On the phone I see +1.314.683.aabb, +49.238.aaaa, ??P0, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff, +1.207.370.aagg, Gez_Lemon, alepas, +1.425.865.aahh, +49.173.515.aaii,
(22:02:37) Zakim: ... Libby_Miller
(22:03:00) BenG: Zakim, ??P0 is probably me
(22:03:00) Zakim: +BenG?; got it
(22:03:00) FabGandon: Reminder : The Zakim bridge numbers are +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99 and +44.117.370.6152.
(22:03:29) alepas est désormais connu sous le nom de AlexPassant
(22:03:49) AlbertoSanJose [AlbertoSan@89.128.167.236] a rejoint le salon.
(22:04:28) FabGandon: Zakim, who is talking?
(22:04:37) Zakim: + +1.201.982.aajj
(22:04:39) Zakim: FabGandon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: DKA (51%), +1.207.370.aagg (14%)
(22:04:57) Zakim: + +1.617.848.aakk
(22:05:00) FabGandon: Zakim, who is talking?
(22:05:10) Zakim: FabGandon, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.238.aaaa (90%), Gez_Lemon (4%), +95201aaee (4%), +1.201.982.aajj (44%), +1.617.848.aakk (76%)
(22:05:41) Pam [824c20a7@128.30.52.43] a rejoint le salon.
(22:05:58) FabGandon: Zakim, +49.238.aaaa is FabGandon
(22:05:58) Zakim: +FabGandon; got it
(22:06:27) FabGandon: in IRC
(22:06:29) AlexPassant: +1 for irc notes
(22:06:33) BenG: ok
(22:07:02) Zakim: +[IPcaller]
(22:07:05) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:07:12) DKA: zakim, who is here?
(22:07:12) Zakim: On the phone I see +1.314.683.aabb, FabGandon, BenG?, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff, +1.207.370.aagg, Gez_Lemon, alepas, +1.425.865.aahh, +49.173.515.aaii,
(22:07:16) Zakim: ... Libby_Miller, +1.201.982.aajj, +1.617.848.aakk, [IPcaller]
(22:07:17) Zakim: On IRC I see danbri, Pam, AlbertoSanJose, libby, JorgeG, DKA, Zakim, AlexPassant, BenG, Adam, FabGandon, tpa, oshani
(22:07:37) BenG: topic : deifnie how many task forces
(22:07:44) BenG: topic 2 : deliverables
(22:07:45) renato [renato@203.143.174.121] a rejoint le salon.
(22:07:49) danbri: i'm trying to skype in... but no joy yet
(22:07:54) danbri: apologies for that
(22:07:55) claudio [5d670a21@128.30.52.43] a rejoint le salon.
(22:07:59) Archives démarrées. Les nouveaux messages de cette conversation seront archivés.
(22:08:13) BenG: topic 3 : more clarity around task forces and deliverables
(22:08:33) BenG: topic 4 : lists and teleconferences
(22:08:43) BenG: topic 5 : chairs
(22:10:29) Zakim: + +1.510.931.aall
(22:10:40) Zakim: +??P29
(22:10:40) cperey [cperey@194.158.241.231] a rejoint le salon.
(22:10:58) carlosI [chatzilla@85.57.130.243] a rejoint le salon.
(22:10:58) hhalpin_ [hhalpin@129.215.91.14] a rejoint le salon.
(22:11:09) hhalpin_: Zakim, who's on phone?
(22:11:09) Zakim: I don't understand your question, hhalpin_.
(22:11:13) FabGandon: zakim, who is here?
(22:11:14) Zakim: On the phone I see +1.314.683.aabb, FabGandon, BenG?, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff, +1.207.370.aagg, Gez_Lemon, alepas, +1.425.865.aahh, +49.173.515.aaii,
(22:11:14) hhalpin_: Zakim, who is on phone?
(22:11:17) Zakim: ... Libby_Miller, +1.201.982.aajj, +1.617.848.aakk, [IPcaller], +1.510.931.aall, ??P29
(22:11:18) Zakim: On IRC I see hhalpin_, carlosI, cperey, claudio, renato, danbri, Pam, AlbertoSanJose, libby, JorgeG, DKA, Zakim, AlexPassant, BenG, Adam, FabGandon, tpa, oshani
(22:11:20) Zakim: I don't understand your question, hhalpin_.
(22:11:33) hhalpin_: Zakim, P29 is hhalpin
(22:11:34) Zakim: sorry, hhalpin_, I do not recognize a party named 'P29'
(22:11:36) BenG: Topic 1 : One united incubator group or several
(22:11:45) hhalpin_: Zakim, ??P29 is hhalpin
(22:11:45) Zakim: +hhalpin; got it
(22:11:47) AlbertoSanJose: Zakim, dude, I´m on the phone too
(22:11:47) Zakim: I don't understand 'dude, I´m on the phone too', AlbertoSanJose
(22:11:48) BenG: Harry has sent an email
(22:11:59) BenG: .. with results of the web poll
(22:12:03) claudio: +39.011.aadd is claudio
(22:12:07) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:12:21) BenG: URI is http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results
(22:12:23) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:12:24) Zakim: + +1.416.648.aamm
(22:12:30) Zakim: +??P31
(22:12:40) ***danbri zakim, ??P31 is danbri
(22:12:41) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(22:12:51) BenG: Harry summarises the results posted to the page
(22:12:57) ***danbri is in, sorry i'm late (and for if i get dropped randomly)
(22:13:35) ***danbri zakim, who is on the call?
(22:13:35) ***Zakim sees on the phone: +1.314.683.aabb, FabGandon, BenG?, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff, +1.207.370.aagg, Gez_Lemon, alepas, +1.425.865.aahh, +49.173.515.aaii,
(22:13:37) BenG: christine : agreement on 1 unifed XG ?
(22:13:38) ***Zakim ... Libby_Miller, +1.201.982.aajj, +1.617.848.aakk, [IPcaller], +1.510.931.aall, hhalpin, +1.416.648.aamm, danbri
(22:13:49) DKA: zakim, who's making noise?
(22:14:00) Zakim: DKA, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Gez_Lemon (39%), +1.617.848.aakk (49%), hhalpin (19%), danbri (95%)
(22:14:27) BenG: harry : question not asked
(22:14:55) BenG: christine : Is there a general agreement with the fact there is one XG and several TFs ?
(22:14:55) DKA: +1 to multiple task forces, multiple task forces
(22:15:03) danbri a changé le sujet en : SocialWeb XG discussions http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTeleconferences http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results
(22:15:05) BenG: harry: TFs are a 50/50 so should be debated
(22:15:27) BenG: TFs : is 16 for, 15 against, 8 don't care
(22:15:53) BenG: ?? : TF should be considered depending on the work that turns up
(22:15:55) hhalpin_: Results: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results
(22:16:02) BenG: .. a little too early to debate
(22:16:20) BenG: .. they are a way of doing things, not a goal per se
(22:16:34) BenG: zakim, who is talking ?
(22:16:41) danbri: q+ to speak in favour of informal taskforces
(22:16:42) ***Zakim sees danbri on the speaker queue
(22:16:45) Zakim: BenG, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: +49.621.629.aaff (18%), +1.617.848.aakk (75%)
(22:17:39) hhalpin_: q+ to speak on task forces
(22:17:39) ***Zakim sees danbri, hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:18:00) BenG: alex : Tfs would function as cultures
(22:18:02) DKA: q+
(22:18:02) ***Zakim sees danbri, hhalpin_, DKA on the speaker queue
(22:18:14) danbri: suggest 2 principles for taskforces: transparency and not-listed-in-charter
(22:18:55) BenG: danbri : (can't hear)
(22:19:24) ***BenG can't understand rather
(22:19:26) Zakim: -danbri
(22:19:45) BenG: harry : Tfs should come after the discussion on deliverables
(22:20:40) BenG: DKA (?) : support TFs
(22:21:00) davide [davide@91.114.70.30] a rejoint le salon.
(22:21:25) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:21:39) BenG: ... it's nice to have people from various areas talking to each other
(22:21:44) davide: hi everyone, I cannot join the telcon; network problems here :(
(22:21:49) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:22:09) danbri: sorry, cable modem died for 20th time today :( audio for me is not going to work
(22:22:15) danbri: i was trying to summarise my point in IRC, not sure if it got thru:
(22:22:20) danbri: [22:19] danbri: 1. tfs are inevitable in a colalborative environment
(22:22:20) danbri: [22:19] danbri: - so we have princeiples for their being transparent, documented
(22:22:21) danbri: [22:20] danbri: 2. we can't anticipate all collaborations; we shouldn't enumerate all TFs in a charter
(22:22:21) danbri: [22:20] danbri: that's it
(22:22:36) FabGandon: davide: if it can help, The Zakim bridge numbers are +1.617.761.6200, +33.4.89.06.34.99 and +44.117.370.6152.
(22:22:54) hhalpin_: Charter:
(22:23:01) hhalpin_: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour
(22:23:03) hhalpin_: Earlier Draft:
(22:23:05) BenG: christine : check the charter on page :
(22:23:08) BenG: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour
(22:23:14) hhalpin_: http://esw.w3.org/topic/UnifiedSocialXG
(22:23:22) DKA: q?
(22:23:22) ***Zakim sees danbri, hhalpin_, DKA on the speaker queue
(22:23:24) DKA: ack me
(22:23:24) ***Zakim sees danbri, hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:23:30) hhalpin_: Very earlier draft:
(22:23:33) hhalpin_: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebXGCharter
(22:23:37) Zakim: +??P1
(22:23:40) hhalpin_: DanBri's new beginning text:
(22:23:46) Zakim: - +1.416.648.aamm
(22:23:46) ***danbri is back
(22:23:54) BenG: zakim, ack danbri
(22:23:54) Zakim: danbri, you wanted to speak in favour of informal taskforces
(22:23:56) hhalpin_: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeThree
(22:23:56) Zakim: I see hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:24:00) DKA: q?
(22:24:00) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:24:00) ***danbri zakim, ??P1 is danbri
(22:24:02) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(22:24:04) DKA: ack hh
(22:24:05) Zakim: hhalpin_, you wanted to speak on task forces
(22:24:05) ***Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
(22:24:08) ***danbri zakim, ack me
(22:24:08) ***Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
(22:24:28) hhalpin_: q+
(22:24:29) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:24:33) BenG: christine : what about the "lightweight" latest charter
(22:24:45) tpa: q+
(22:24:45) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_, tpa on the speaker queue
(22:24:50) ***danbri happy to listen, not connected well enough to speak audibly, it seems
(22:25:14) BenG: renato : the different charters boild down to what are the key deliverables
(22:25:47) BenG: ... this is what we should focus on, charter matters less.
(22:25:51) hhalpin_: +1 renato
(22:25:55) DKA: +1
(22:25:56) danbri: renato, my proposal is for the only 100%-promised deliverable to be a Final Report, but for other documents and artifacts to be options
(22:26:35) danbri: I really hope we write more stuff, ... and use cases + privacy/policy would be my preferred priorities (or the things i think most likely to actually get done)
(22:26:57) hhalpin_: What I phrase should be "Also, a number of deliverables _could_ be produced, although this work may also be subsumed into the final report."
(22:27:10) ***danbri likes that phrase
(22:27:16) BenG: christine : have just best practices reports ?
(22:27:30) BenG: harry : this is a project management issue
(22:27:38) BenG: ... in general XGs produce a single report
(22:28:06) BenG: ... this XG has many people, it makes sense to propose several report, but we should minimize the proposed number of deliverables
(22:28:16) BenG: ... most WGs do not have that many delivrables !
(22:29:00) DKA: q+ to note that the XG is a farily new animal so not to get caught up in what other XGs have and haven't done.
(22:29:01) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_, tpa, DKA on the speaker queue
(22:29:01) BenG: ... We must not promise all this up front.
(22:29:12) BenG: zakim, ack hhalpin_
(22:29:13) Zakim: I see tpa, DKA on the speaker queue
(22:29:19) melvster [melvster@87.151.8.14] a rejoint le salon.
(22:29:20) danbri: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/procedures.html#Deliverables suggests "The main product of a successful XG is an XG Report " but doesn't say we can't do more...
(22:29:50) ***danbri zakim, q?
(22:29:50) ***Zakim sees tpa, DKA on the speaker queue
(22:29:53) BenG: ... would decrease the chances of becommign a WG if all objectives are not atteined
(22:30:08) FabGandon: zakim, ack tpa
(22:30:08) Zakim: I see DKA on the speaker queue
(22:30:15) BenG: Tim : why don't we plan something very short
(22:30:38) BenG: ... just work on one document that would be critical, rest would be done in a WG
(22:30:56) hhalpin_: Tim, a good idea, but I have never seen an XG or WG run for less than a year, even for a single final report.
(22:30:58) BenG: ... a final report
(22:31:05) Zakim: -danbri
(22:32:03) DKA: ack me
(22:32:03) Zakim: DKA, you wanted to note that the XG is a farily new animal so not to get caught up in what other XGs have and haven't done.
(22:32:06) ***Zakim sees no one on the speaker queue
(22:32:07) karl [karlcow@128.30.54.58] a rejoint le salon.
(22:32:34) danbri_ [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:32:35) BenG: DKA : general process is to produce a report.
(22:32:51) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:33:17) BenG: ...then to become a WG to work on a rec (hopefully)
(22:33:29) ***danbri_ back (again), no thanks to Orange broadband
(22:34:02) danbri_: re duration, i like http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/procedures.html#Duration
(22:34:05) danbri_: [[ Each XG will end:
(22:34:06) danbri_: * Upon completion of the work in eyes of the XG, whether deemed successful or not.
(22:34:06) danbri_: * Upon reaching the end of the chartered duration, which is a maximum of one year from the start of the XG.
(22:34:06) danbri_: ]]
(22:34:21) danbri_: so realistically it will be around a year, maybe finish a bit quickly, maybe slightly run over
(22:34:42) BenG: christine : difficult to have people attracted, unless they are working on a portion of the report they care about
(22:34:43) danbri_: (we can always recharter a related successor XG if a WG is deemed premature, or migrate to Interest Group status too)
(22:34:48) miquel [miquel@91.17.164.12] a rejoint le salon.
(22:35:00) BenG: DKA: this XG is different, most others focus on one poitn solutions
(22:35:03) tpa: +q
(22:35:03) ***Zakim sees tpa on the speaker queue
(22:35:17) BenG: ... this XG is much broader
(22:35:52) hhalpin_: So, to get into queue you type "q+"
(22:35:56) AlbertoSanJose: My 2 cents: Social Web is so new, so start to work and see what happens
(22:35:58) Zakim: -[IPcaller]
(22:36:03) renato: q+
(22:36:03) ***Zakim sees tpa, renato on the speaker queue
(22:36:09) miquel a quitté le salon (quit: Client exited)
(22:36:14) Zakim: +[IPcaller]
(22:36:19) miquel [miquel@91.17.164.12] a rejoint le salon.
(22:36:24) ***danbri_ zakim, [IPcaller] is danbri
(22:36:24) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(22:36:24) DKA: [this is Doloros Iorizzo from Imperial College London speaking]
(22:36:29) BenG: ?? : should not be focused just on best practices
(22:36:32) hhalpin_: We could imagine a series of WGs coming out of these XGs.
(22:36:34) BenG: s/??/Doloros
(22:36:51) DKA: d/Doloros/Dolores
(22:36:58) DKA: s/Doloros/Dolores
(22:37:05) DKA: zakim, who is speaking?
(22:37:08) BenG: zakim, please mute danbri
(22:37:08) Zakim: danbri should now be muted
(22:37:19) Zakim: DKA, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: +1.207.370.aagg (61%), Gez_Lemon (17%), +1.617.848.aakk (9%), hhalpin (4%)
(22:37:38) hhalpin_: So, is that a proposal for doing use-cases first, then have deliverables come out?
(22:37:42) BenG: dolores : need to have different scenarios for different uses cases, and deliverables should come out of that.
(22:37:59) hhalpin_: we could rename s/best pratices/reports
(22:38:06) danbri_: I agree... nobody in the industry knows what is best yet, overally
(22:38:14) danbri_: s/overally/overall/
(22:38:34) Zakim: +[IPcaller]
(22:39:46) hhalpin_: Also, if you feel you have a minor point but don't wish to speak, feel free to type it into IRC.
(22:39:57) Zakim: -danbri
(22:40:14) Zakim: - +1.201.982.aajj
(22:40:32) BenG: Tim : the changes in the take four were on use cases and best practices. These documents could be parts of the final report.
(22:40:37) hhalpin_: I would be happy to cut everything out of charter except final report.
(22:41:14) BenG: ... charter has moved fast
(22:41:16) renato: q
(22:41:38) BenG: renato : compare to emergency information XG : broad area
(22:41:39) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:41:43) Zakim: +??P1
(22:41:50) BenG: ... was going to make 3 deliverables :
(22:41:52) BenG: state of the art
(22:41:55) ***danbri zakim, ??P1 is danbri
(22:41:55) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(22:41:59) BenG: final report (use cases)
(22:42:19) BenG: (missed the middle one?)
(22:42:36) danbri_ a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:42:59) BenG: ... we must have at least 3 deliverables that are central to this area
(22:43:06) hhalpin_: The reason I used "best practices" was to talk about core areas/topics, which might be task forces:
(22:43:13) hhalpin_: 1) contextual data and mobile
(22:43:14) BenG: ... final report refers to them, and proposes future work to be done
(22:43:21) danbri: i like harry's compromise - allows these themes to be delivered as parts of the final report or separately
(22:43:22) hhalpin_: 2) Architecture and data interoperability
(22:43:28) hhalpin_: 3) Privacy and Trust
(22:43:31) BenG: christine : sort of 3 levels in a hierarchical system
(22:43:44) Zakim: -danbri
(22:43:58) julianpye [5d686456@128.30.52.43] a rejoint le salon.
(22:44:01) hhalpin_: 4) User Experience, Internationalization, Accessibility
(22:44:03) BenG: ... titles should not drill down into too much specificity
(22:44:44) hhalpin_: We can even just say "We will address these areas"
(22:44:59) Zakim: + +1.201.982.aann
(22:45:13) BenG: renato : just take 3 bullet points and then start discussion
(22:45:15) Zakim: +??P4
(22:45:22) danbri_ [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:45:40) ***danbri_ is back, again again
(22:45:41) hhalpin_: Do people feel like the current names are too "low-level"?
(22:45:47) hhalpin_: Or "high-level?"
(22:46:00) miquel: Would merging into a single deliverable decrease the visibility of the topics within?
(22:46:17) bblfish [bblfish@88.163.1.232] a rejoint le salon.
(22:46:18) BenG: christine : let participants chose the topic within each deliverables
(22:46:21) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:46:25) bblfish: phew! Got in
(22:46:30) BenG: ... would also let people participate in several subjects
(22:46:38) AlexPassant: what about privacy/trust and PLING ?
(22:47:25) hhalpin_: I am not too attached to any of the titles of http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour
(22:47:31) hhalpin_: But am not sure what kinds of titles are wanted.
(22:47:36) BenG: renato : does anyone want to stick with detailled deliverables ?
(22:48:01) danbri_: i'd prefer "recommendations" rather than "best practices" ...
(22:48:09) hhalpin_: That works for me.
(22:48:17) BenG: DKA : join 2, 4, 5 (?)
(22:48:24) danbri_: "best" is tough in an evolving field, and the recommendations might be things like "opensocial should use ARIA for accessibility"...
(22:48:45) BenG: christine : 1) use cases 2) scenarios 3) final report
(22:49:02) miquel: q+
(22:49:02) ***Zakim sees tpa, renato, miquel on the speaker queue
(22:49:05) hhalpin_: I am a bit confused over differences between scenario/use-cases.
(22:49:06) hhalpin_: I heard
(22:49:13) hhalpin_: 1) use-cases 2) mapping 3) final report
(22:49:13) AlexPassant: +1 hhalpin_
(22:49:18) danbri_: i'd put use cases and scenarios together...
(22:49:26) BenG: scenarii would include several use cases (as far as I gathered)
(22:49:30) danbri_: or at least, i don't understand how the distinction be made
(22:49:39) danbri_: q?
(22:49:39) ***Zakim sees tpa, renato, miquel on the speaker queue
(22:49:41) renato: q-
(22:49:42) ***Zakim sees tpa, miquel on the speaker queue
(22:49:46) tpa: q-
(22:49:46) ***Zakim sees miquel on the speaker queue
(22:49:57) BenG: miquel : agree with one deliverable
(22:50:00) AlexPassant: 1) use-cases /scenarios 2) requirements / mappings 3) report
(22:50:20) cperey: yes, thank you Alexandre
(22:50:28) Zakim: -??P4
(22:50:33) BenG: ... work can be taken later in the WG step
(22:51:30) hhalpin_: "Mapping"->"Social Data and Semantics"
(22:51:37) BenG: christine : mapping = industry mappings
(22:51:39) bblfish: architetural values?
(22:51:40) hhalpin_: q+
(22:51:40) ***Zakim sees miquel, hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(22:52:19) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(22:52:21) Zakim: +??P4
(22:52:23) BenG: harry : mappings would be mappings between various standards (such as openID)
(22:52:39) danbri_ a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(22:52:41) Zakim: - +1.201.982.aann
(22:53:03) BenG: ... final report must be high level so that any journalist can read it
(22:53:07) cperey: mapping who is doing what for contextual data?
(22:53:27) hhalpin_: Mappings between industry, the final report might be different than interoperability/distributed architecture stuff, which might be too "low-level" for a high level final report.
(22:53:40) ***danbri is missing too much of this (bad connectivity) to follow well, sorry
(22:53:40) cperey: mapping who is doing what on the topic of privacy?
(22:54:02) BenG: (can't hear speaker very well)
(22:54:02) hhalpin_: I think industry mappings are important, in fact, very much so, so maybe these should be upfront in final report.
(22:54:25) cperey: mapping who is doing what on payments?
(22:54:26) BenG: renato : should we split high level and low level into several deliverables ?
(22:55:20) hhalpin_: people will also probably have different specialities - some people are mostly coders who will look at low-level tech details, other people will focus on high level industry overview.
(22:55:58) BenG: Tim (?) : need for the low level deliverables to NOT extend the life time of the XG too long
(22:56:03) AlbertoSanJose: hhalpin +1 to that
(22:56:19) danbri: agreed - bigger jobs have to happen elsewhere
(22:56:26) hhalpin_: We could start using proposal system with formal consensus.
(22:56:29) hhalpin_: I.e. you type:
(22:56:34) hhalpin_: PROPOSAL: What you want an answer on.
(22:57:28) hhalpin_: Why don't in the charter we just say "We will cover these areas"
(22:57:45) hhalpin_: "and these may become multiple deliverables"
(22:58:02) BenG: christine : vote on number of deliverables ?
(22:58:07) danbri: if we pull out any one thing beyond a Final Report, i'd go for scenarios / use cases ...
(22:58:18) danbri: ... and these could live quite naturally in the wiki, evolve over time
(22:58:43) renato: three deliverabes...
(22:58:47) AlexPassant: 1) use-cases /scenarios 2) requirements / mappings 3) report
(22:58:58) AlexPassant: here they are
(22:58:59) hhalpin_: Sounds good to me.
(22:59:01) danbri: can you briefly remind us what "mappings" amounts to? schema stuff?
(22:59:04) tpa: works for me
(22:59:17) BenG: danbri : its who is doing what
(22:59:39) renato: high-level: industry activities
(22:59:45) renato: ...privacy etc
(22:59:54) ***BenG oops was supposed to be a whisp
(23:00:01) danbri: thanks cperey! so it's sort of territorial mapping ... yes i think this is v worthwhile ...
(23:00:07) miquel: what parts of the scenarios are covered by whic hexisting technologies <-mappings ?
(23:00:10) renato: low-level: protocold etc
(23:00:20) danbri: ...and yes, that naturally shades into technical collab on apis and schemas
(23:00:21) renato: protocols
(23:00:47) danbri: I am happy leaving those detailed technical analyses to external collaborations which simply report to the group from time to time
(23:01:00) BenG: harry : low level can be usefull for guarding future work, and help shape W3C's objectives
(23:01:04) danbri: but fine to publish thru the xg too. i have no strong pref.
(23:01:14) BenG: ... need to have tech work done in the future
(23:01:40) BenG: dolores : problems that arise when merging the social web and the semantic web ?
(23:01:49) hhalpin_: Well, obviously there are some Semantic Web people here.
(23:01:52) BenG: ... should be delt with in point 3
(23:01:53) danbri: point 3 = 3rd deliverable?
(23:02:02) AlexPassant: danbri: some of us already works on tech appraoches, we may include that in the final report of the 2nd document without too many XG efforts
(23:02:29) ***danbri nods, agrees ... it's an environment into which lots of existing collaborations can report
(23:02:44) BenG: harry : SW technologies might be used by some, but others might not want to.
(23:02:48) Zakim: -??P4
(23:02:51) CaptSolo [rainman@195.13.160.19] a rejoint le salon.
(23:02:53) renato: q+
(23:02:53) ***Zakim sees miquel, hhalpin_, renato on the speaker queue
(23:02:54) BenG: ... difficulty to balance low level vs high level
(23:03:11) miquel: If we don't have Oauth and openid on the title, why give so much prominence so semantinc web? just examples of course
(23:04:02) hhalpin_: The current charter mentions OpenID/OAuth about twice as many times as Semantic Web.
(23:04:13) hhalpin_: http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour
(23:04:20) tpa: q+
(23:04:20) ***Zakim sees miquel, hhalpin_, renato, tpa on the speaker queue
(23:04:27) miquel: u get my point hhalpin ;)
(23:04:33) BenG: christine : do we have enough information to modify the charter ?
(23:04:34) danbri_ [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(23:04:47) hhalpin_: 1) final report
(23:04:54) hhalpin_: 2) use-cases document
(23:04:57) Zakim: +??P10
(23:05:06) BenG: harry is summing up the documents he feels necessary
(23:05:08) hhalpin_: 3) mappings (high-level and low-level)
(23:05:08) ***danbri_ zakim, ??P10 is danbri
(23:05:09) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(23:05:14) hhalpin_: Or in two separate ones?
(23:05:18) hhalpin_: Or should we drop low-level?
(23:05:19) renato: q+
(23:05:20) ***Zakim sees miquel, hhalpin_, renato, tpa on the speaker queue
(23:05:28) Zakim: - +39.011.aadd
(23:05:30) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(23:05:32) DKA: +1 on final report, +1 on use cases, +1 on industry mappings, +1 on low level (ref: task forces)
(23:05:52) Zakim: - +1.425.865.aahh
(23:06:07) hhalpin_: We can just be "vague" on nature of mappings.
(23:06:14) cperey: yes
(23:06:17) tpa: works for me
(23:06:33) DKA: [I also think there is a role for "best practices" - which seems to be similar to what others are calling "low level mapping"]
(23:06:45) hhalpin_: ack hhalpin
(23:06:45) ***Zakim sees miquel, renato, tpa on the speaker queue
(23:07:00) miquel: agreed. let's use the call to make decisions on high level stuff first
(23:07:16) tpa: q-
(23:07:16) ***Zakim sees miquel, renato on the speaker queue
(23:07:20) BenG: DKA : all deliverables seem reasonable
(23:07:47) tpa: so can we or should we shorten the lifespan of the XG?
(23:07:49) BenG: ... but don't foget best practices : look at current industry practices
(23:07:50) hhalpin_: it seems consensus is word "best practices" should be dropped, or at least adjective "best" from charter
(23:07:53) tpa: we went from 15 deliverables to 3
(23:08:02) danbri_: "current industry practice ... existing tech, stds, ... where they are being put to use, ... what works in reality ..."
(23:08:12) danbri_: ..."can be some best practice brought to light"
(23:08:18) hhalpin_: I think it is likely once we get report done, if we get multiple WGs, there will be 15+ deliverables :)
(23:08:25) tpa: would it work to advance our expected end date?
(23:08:29) renato: best practice = current practice
(23:08:29) tpa: is that realistic?
(23:08:34) ***CaptSolo is not on the call, yet has some feedback. is it ok to write it on IRC?
(23:08:45) ***hhalpin_ yes, CaptSolo, write into IRC.
(23:08:52) CaptSolo: hhalpin_: cheers
(23:08:54) ***hhalpin_ would like to see more writing in IRC.
(23:09:04) danbri_: irc, yes please.
(23:09:23) bblfish: explaining +/- for current practices given architectural values for distributed social networks
(23:09:30) bblfish: would be interesting
(23:09:51) hhalpin_: We need some concrete decisions for the charter.
(23:09:52) danbri_: what's left to decide?
(23:09:54) hhalpin_: Re meeting times
(23:09:58) hhalpin_: chairing
(23:10:02) CaptSolo: "... is devoted to Social Web topics. These include describing and identifying people, groups and organizations in extensible and privacy respecting ways."
(23:10:05) hhalpin_: 1 or multiple mailing list
(23:10:06) danbri_: re mailing lists, telecons, etc...
(23:10:09) AlbertoSanJose: Consider finding "patterns", as they could lead easily to code to protocols
(23:10:43) libby: apologies, I have to go
(23:10:44) danbri_: 1 group, 1 main list... and everything around it fades into non-xg stuff ... .... but we can all use www-archive@w3.org ... or other groups lists too
(23:10:46) Zakim: -Libby_Miller
(23:10:47) BenG: Renato : can discuss this on first call
(23:10:51) CaptSolo: people and social networks are just one aspect of the social web
(23:11:18) CaptSolo: text of http://esw.w3.org/topic/SocialWebTakeFour is mostly about describing social networks
(23:11:19) BenG: Tim : can we advance the end date of the XG ?
(23:11:22) hhalpin_: In my experience, 3 would take about a year. Open standards take time.
(23:11:30) Zakim: -danbri
(23:11:36) hhalpin_: If we finish early, we can end charter early.
(23:11:37) CaptSolo: while an important (and a large) part of the social web is user-generated content
(23:11:57) hhalpin_: So, it's a bureaucratic further.
(23:12:09) ***CaptSolo 'd suggest to make sure we are not forgetting about content :)
(23:12:15) BenG: harry : it is possible to close early
(23:12:24) tpa: but deadlines help :)
(23:12:32) CaptSolo: and everything that is around content (tags, ...)
(23:12:37) ***BenG agrees with Tim
(23:13:08) CaptSolo: ... or, if user-created content is excluded, then the name of the group should reflect that
(23:13:08) davide a quitté le salon (quit: Connection reset by peer)
(23:13:09) Zakim: +??P10
(23:13:14) renato: one year is fine
(23:13:15) tpa: q+
(23:13:15) ***Zakim sees miquel, renato, tpa on the speaker queue
(23:13:17) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(23:13:25) CaptSolo: as in "Social Networks IG"
(23:13:27) ***BenG needs to drop out of the call asap and would like to know how long it's still planned or if someone else can take up scribing
(23:13:31) davide [davide@91.114.70.30] a rejoint le salon.
(23:13:33) ***danbri b
(23:13:34) CaptSolo: s/IG/XG
(23:13:38) hhalpin_: Capt Solo: Please make edits direct to wiki.
(23:13:40) Zakim: -??P10
(23:13:45) danbri_ a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(23:13:48) hhalpin_: I am sure there is not much of objection over adding user-generated content.
(23:13:57) hhalpin_: but if anyone has anything, they can also edit.
(23:14:01) hhalpin_: Not yet.
(23:14:06) BenG: christine : talk about editors and include them in the charter ?
(23:14:11) BenG: main answer : no
(23:14:16) hhalpin_: Now, there are things are things: editors.
(23:14:16) BenG: christine : chair nomination
(23:14:22) hhalpin_: are not needed.
(23:14:26) tpa: q-
(23:14:26) ***Zakim sees miquel, renato on the speaker queue
(23:14:32) BenG: miquel : discussion on the TF division has been skipped
(23:14:33) Pam a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
(23:14:34) hhalpin_: but we need to know, weekly/biweekly telecons.
(23:14:36) CaptSolo: hhalpin_: thanks
(23:14:42) DKA: q+ to put myself forward as a candidate for co-chair of this XG
(23:14:43) ***Zakim sees miquel, renato, DKA on the speaker queue
(23:14:47) renato: q-
(23:14:47) ***Zakim sees miquel, DKA on the speaker queue
(23:15:04) BenG: christine : there is concensus that people want to work on what they are interested in but do not want to be excluded from anything
(23:15:12) hhalpin_: Current line in charter says "Since some of this work may require separate teleconference time, task forces may be used in order to focus activity on specific achievable goals."
(23:15:17) CaptSolo: however, before editing, i need to get more context (literally jumped in here after seeing mention of the telcon on #swig). don't want to do edits in haste.
(23:15:21) Zakim: +??P10
(23:15:22) danbri_ [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(23:15:26) hhalpin_: Which allows edits.
(23:15:56) CaptSolo: if someone more familiar with the text adds user-generated content where it fits, that'd be great
(23:16:03) BenG: harry : TFs would requiere specific telecons (this is in charter)
(23:16:06) CaptSolo: in either case, i'll explore it more and do edits if needed
(23:16:08) BenG: ... 40 people on a call is not productive
(23:16:22) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(23:16:28) BenG: ... all this needn't be detailled in the charter
(23:16:28) danbri_: CaptSolo, I don't think SocialWebTake4 is mostly about describing social nets ... there's opensocial, oauth, openid, emphasis on mobileweb meets widget platforms, accessibility, ...
(23:16:36) hhalpin_: does that address the concern miguel?
(23:16:45) hhalpin_: telcon: weekly/biweekly/monthly?
(23:16:50) BenG: harry : weekly or bi-weekly / monthly ?
(23:16:50) hhalpin_: chairs
(23:16:58) DKA: Suggest we decide on chairs first and worry about telecons off-line.
(23:17:02) BenG: christine : have one a month but can have them more often if we want ?
(23:17:03) renato: q+
(23:17:04) ***Zakim sees miquel, DKA, renato on the speaker queue
(23:17:07) hhalpin_: Given the amount of interest, I'd tend towards weekly.
(23:17:10) bblfish: weekly slot sounds good
(23:17:14) bblfish: there's a lot there
(23:17:15) AlbertoSanJose: telcons: biweekly
(23:17:17) miquel: q-
(23:17:17) ***Zakim sees DKA, renato on the speaker queue
(23:17:22) danbri_: i would encourage ppl to not use the audio slot weekly ...
(23:17:26) danbri_: ...but to have it available
(23:17:37) BenG: +1 danbri
(23:17:39) danbri_: the charter notes that eg microformats people are 100% wiki + email ...
(23:17:44) DKA: [personally I support bi-weekly]
(23:17:48) danbri_: ...so if we are gonna work with them, we need to adapt to their work style
(23:18:08) DKA: [but spinning off task forces will also impact this]
(23:18:11) danbri_: i dont think discussing content on the call will be productive, ... phone call mostly just to chase people
(23:18:15) CaptSolo: danbri_: one could reformulate it to "anything but content". to me, content people create is the largest part of the social web.
(23:18:16) bblfish: perhaps start off biweekly?
(23:18:28) BenG: renato : supporting biweekly
(23:18:28) bblfish: just to get things settled
(23:18:28) CaptSolo: danbri_: important enough to be described.
(23:18:29) hhalpin_: i am a bit confused re weekly/biweekly/monthly.
(23:18:41) danbri_: biweekly ok by me
(23:19:09) danbri_: how about audio biweekly, but editors etc keep the alternate week's slot assigned to the XG, for email/IRC/wiki collaboration
(23:19:27) renato: action: define the three deliverables
(23:19:28) Zakim: -Gez_Lemon
(23:19:29) hhalpin_: We could say "weekly"
(23:19:34) danbri_: yeah
(23:19:36) bblfish: sounds good
(23:19:47) danbri_: nobody will force us to meet weekly
(23:19:49) bblfish: weekly
(23:19:49) renato: renato....dropped out...redialling now
(23:19:57) hhalpin_: Exactly.
(23:19:59) danbri_: we could check in, talk for 10 mins, and return to our inbox
(23:20:04) AlbertoSanJose: +1 bblfish
(23:20:23) BenG: concensus on reserving weekly
(23:20:32) ***danbri_ is available to co-chair, but happy for others to do it if the group prefers
(23:20:45) hhalpin_: That's a good question.
(23:20:46) BenG: christine : does the w3c XG process stipulate that a chair must be a w3c member
(23:20:47) danbri_: hmm not sure
(23:20:58) danbri_: i think invited experts have chaired in the past
(23:21:04) Zakim: +??P9
(23:21:08) BenG: harry : suppose it is not a requierement
(23:21:09) renato: renato is back
(23:21:16) danbri_: but typically that's been when someone was a chair already and their employment situation changed out under them
(23:21:30) DKA: q?
(23:21:30) ***Zakim sees DKA, renato on the speaker queue
(23:21:44) AlexPassant: I think that's ok wrt non-member, e.g. LeeF is co-chair of SPARQL as invited expert
(23:22:00) hhalpin_: I'm pretty sure.
(23:22:08) renato: q+
(23:22:08) ***Zakim sees DKA, renato on the speaker queue
(23:22:10) danbri_: but you do need to be an Invited Expert, i'm sure of that
(23:22:20) hhalpin_: However, with XGs almost anyone can become an Invited Expert.
(23:22:36) renato: question: shouls all members of the XG be invited experts?
(23:22:39) BenG: DKA : to nominate himself as co-chair
(23:22:47) BenG: ... vodafone interested in taking a strong role in the gruop
(23:23:12) BenG: renato : chairs should have experience
(23:23:26) Zakim: -??P10
(23:23:28) BenG: ... in knowing w3c process
(23:23:51) BenG: christine : would like someone from industry as a co chair
(23:23:56) miquel: makes sense
(23:24:38) BenG: harry : happy to chair or not, one of the rules of the chair is to know w3c process, scope that everything is on time
(23:24:38) claudio a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
(23:24:49) BenG: ... chair must say what is out of scope, keep the group on tracks
(23:25:08) BenG: ... know w3c tools
(23:25:13) danbri [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(23:25:21) Zakim: +??P10
(23:25:24) danbri_ a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(23:25:28) BenG: ... also be an ambassador to the outside world
(23:25:39) ***danbri zakim, ??P10 is danbri
(23:25:40) ***Zakim +danbri; got it
(23:25:41) BenG: ... large players arent here
(23:25:59) BenG: ... in favor of DanBri
(23:26:11) bblfish: +1 for DanBri
(23:26:18) BenG: ... nice to have someone neutral
(23:26:19) ***danbri comes in halfway through this sentence
(23:26:21) Adam: +1 for DanBri
(23:26:34) ***BenG cheers at DanBri
(23:26:39) hhalpin_: We could have 3.
(23:26:46) miquel: how can we go about a vote?
(23:26:46) ***bblfish I can hear someone's typing
(23:26:57) hhalpin_: We had a vote earlier.
(23:26:58) hhalpin_: See:
(23:26:59) BenG: renato : possible to have chairs for seperate areas
(23:27:15) hhalpin_: What names weren't on the list?
(23:27:21) hhalpin_: I added Claudio and Tim.
(23:27:24) hhalpin_: Ah, yes.
(23:27:28) hhalpin_: Sorry!
(23:27:51) hhalpin_: My feeling is Dan Applequist, DanBri, and myself.
(23:27:52) ***tpa reiterates his availability for business outreach, per mailing list emails
(23:27:52) danbri: i've missed half the call, yeah :( and have been out of the loop somewhat...
(23:28:01) BenG: christine : do not want 2 people from SW chairing
(23:28:03) hhalpin_: I'd like to directly object to "SemWeb" characterization.
(23:28:09) danbri: woah woah, ... "2 people from semweb backgrounds" is not an acceptable position
(23:28:31) DKA: [for those who don't know me, BTW, I have been involved with W3C as A.C. member for Vodafone since 2004 (and for another co. briefly in 2001). Also I have chaired Mobile Web Best Practices wg since 2005 - which has delivered a couple Recs now. I also helped to put together the Mobile Web Initiative in W3C. Finally I am leading a program in Vodafone R&D around social web topics so this is pretty core to my work right now.]
(23:28:32) miquel: danbri: your w3c page states I'm working on RDF and Semantic Web technology at W3C.
(23:28:33) danbri: Daniel A. is also semweb-curious, and I would object strongly to your excluding him if he were deemed semwebish
(23:28:45) hhalpin_: q+
(23:28:46) ***Zakim sees DKA, renato, hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(23:28:52) danbri: (miquel, I have no edit access to that page any more... I should send an update)
(23:28:58) renato: q-
(23:28:58) ***Zakim sees DKA, hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(23:29:05) BenG: Tim : there is heavy SW interest in the group
(23:29:07) DKA: q-
(23:29:07) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_ on the speaker queue
(23:29:22) BenG: ... would like to include all sorts of (other) people
(23:29:24) hhalpin_: So to just to be clear:
(23:29:35) hhalpin_: Dan Brickley worked on FOAF, which is a very 2001 effort.
(23:29:41) hhalpin_: on interoperable social networks.
(23:30:05) DKA: Also - if it's between me and Dan Brickley I would vote for Dan Brickley. :)
(23:30:14) danbri: So, I agree that this isn't a semweb-only group. The charter i drafted barely mentioned semweb. It did mention XMPP, OAuth, OpenID, OpenSocial, PortableContacts, Accessibility/ARIA, Widget platforms, ... areas with which I'm very well connected.
(23:30:21) danbri: I'm willing to not chair for many reasons
(23:30:22) BenG: harry : difference between official background, what you are most known for, and who you work for
(23:30:35) danbri: but not chairing because I'm a semwebber is ridiculous and offensive.
(23:30:52) danbri: and I'd be happy for DKA to do it, ... or for DKA/Harry
(23:31:15) miquel: danbri, it's not about you or hhalpin, it's about diversity in the chairs
(23:31:25) BenG: ... everyone is trying to work on this together, some technologies will or will not be known
(23:31:34) cperey: thank you, miguel
(23:31:46) danbri: diversity is about bringing in reps from all parts of the socialweb landscape ...
(23:32:33) Zakim: -danbri
(23:32:35) ***DKA shock horror
(23:32:38) BenG: ... would like someone from industry to chair, but do not exclude people due to "semweb" background
(23:33:33) ***BenG no volunteers ? :(
(23:33:38) hhalpin_: Well, you should vote:
(23:33:42) bblfish: yes true hhalpin has been very active in putting this together, and danbri has been very open to non semweb tools, such as openid, oauth, etc...
(23:33:44) hhalpin_: Daniel Applequist.
(23:33:50) hhalpin_: Industry bit.
(23:33:52) hhalpin_: DanBri
(23:34:00) tpa: I'm ready and willing to
(23:34:00) Zakim: +??P10
(23:34:03) hhalpin_: Clearly fulfills outside ambadssaordship will.
(23:34:08) DKA: ScribeNick: tpa
(23:34:12) ***BenG thanks tim
(23:34:13) DKA: Scribe: Tim
(23:34:14) danbri_ [danbri@85.146.126.248] a rejoint le salon.
(23:34:19) hhalpin_: Of course, w3c process role would be fine with me.
(23:34:27) hhalpin_: It is unsual, it is possible.
(23:34:31) ***danbri_ can confirm that harry is anal-retentive
(23:34:33) ***danbri_ isn't
(23:34:35) ***BenG waves
(23:34:37) danbri_: may i make a suggestion?
(23:34:37) tpa: harry: 3 chairs maybe possible
(23:34:43) BenG a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: BenG)
(23:34:48) danbri_: let's treat Harry's role as that which would be a W3C Staff Contact's role, if this were a WG...
(23:34:53) Zakim: -BenG?
(23:35:04) hhalpin_: Yes, I will functionally perform role of staff contact.
(23:35:04) danbri_: ren, i'm 1000% committed to social web interop ...
(23:35:15) danbri a quitté le salon (quit: Ping timeout)
(23:35:17) danbri_: ...but i am aware that i have been out of the loop these past few months ....
(23:35:19) ***tpa actually needs to drop, doesn't know the scribing protocol
(23:35:25) danbri_: ...and don't want to barge in rudely at last minute
(23:35:30) danbri_: ... so i'm trying to be polite
(23:35:34) hhalpin_: Chairing is a thankless task.
(23:35:37) danbri_: i would love to co-chair the group
(23:35:40) tpa: ??: chairing the group is a lot of administrative duties
(23:35:47) danbri_: (ren, i know)
(23:35:48) hhalpin_: That's why I think Daniel Applequist would be a good third chair.
(23:35:56) FabGandon: +1 for the three chairs : Dan A, Dan B, Harry
(23:35:58) danbri_: (i'm being englishly awkward about putting myself fwd, ok? :)
(23:36:12) AlbertoSanJose: +1 for 3 chairs
(23:36:22) DKA: +1 to danbri as a co-chair
(23:36:23) ***tpa anyone, some help?
(23:36:29) DKA: +1 for 3 chairs
(23:36:35) cperey: +1 for 3 chairs
(23:36:35) miquel: 3's a crowd...
(23:36:36) danbri_: how about Harry, DanA and myself have a chat in the next week and get back to the group with a decision on whether we think we can work together productively?
(23:36:40) DKA: (3 muskateers?)
(23:36:44) danbri_: +1 for 3 chairs
(23:36:51) hhalpin_: 3 is bit of a crowd.
(23:37:00) danbri_: (another danc, heavens...)
(23:37:04) danbri_: lets define some clear roles
(23:37:11) hhalpin_: but then I will perform staff contact role functionally.
(23:37:13) FabGandon: three chairs also allows us to have different chairs at weekly telecon
(23:37:13) tpa: ??: proposes Dan A, Dan B and Harry
(23:37:15) danbri_: harry: process / deliverables / chasing
(23:37:26) danbri_: danbri: bridging to other w3c and web groups
(23:37:29) tpa: christine: this is the end of the agenda
(23:37:32) danbri_: dan a: mobile orientation?
(23:37:33) bblfish: I don't want to chair
(23:37:38) tpa: christine: next steps?
(23:37:50) CaptSolo: +1 for 3 chairs
(23:37:54) hhalpin_: Let's say push out new charter tomorrow reflecting the consensus.
(23:38:00) hhalpin_: Give people till Monday to look at it.
(23:38:04) DKA: +1 to closing; suggest 3 chairs collaborate on new charter
(23:38:06) hhalpin_: Then Mon evening, shoot the charter out.
(23:38:07) tpa: harry: push out new charter tomorrow, let people until Monday for feedback
(23:38:09) hhalpin_: To W3C Team.
(23:38:17) renato: action: new chairs put out new charter (asap)
(23:38:18) hhalpin_: And then we should hopefully by April 1st at latest.
(23:38:18) miquel: can we define a protocol to vote with less discussion on the topics we've discussed now?
(23:38:35) hhalpin_: Voting would be a good idea.
(23:38:39) danbri_: yes let's!
(23:38:45) hhalpin_: Do you want to take a formal vote miguel? If so, just say:
(23:38:52) hhalpin_: PROPOSAL: My Question or statement.
(23:39:07) danbri_: so what was resolved, for the minutes?
(23:39:24) Zakim: - +1.207.370.aagg
(23:39:28) tpa: miquel: when do we vote?
(23:39:30) hhalpin_: We can go over W3C Process.
(23:39:33) hhalpin_: now if you want.
(23:39:42) hhalpin_: In general, you can either or telecon lists.
(23:39:46) hhalpin_: Usually, only the telecons are binding.
(23:39:54) hhalpin_: PROPOSAL:
(23:40:03) hhalpin_: Then you say, let's a have a vote/consensus:
(23:40:12) hhalpin_: 1) Yes
(23:40:13) hhalpin_: 2) No
(23:40:16) hhalpin_: 3) Concur
(23:40:23) hhalpin_: Concur = I go along with majority
(23:40:27) hhalpin_: 4) Abstain.
(23:40:37) ***FabGandon also the polls before votes
(23:40:56) renato: q+
(23:40:56) ***Zakim sees hhalpin_, renato on the speaker queue
(23:41:08) DKA: [I strongly support avoiding votes and generating consensus where possible - taking resolutions]
(23:41:20) DKA: [but we will have to "find our way"]
(23:41:25) hhalpin_: PROPOSAL: Voting on chair.
(23:41:32) danbri_: [i prefer consensus and straw polls ... voting is last resort]
(23:41:34) hhalpin_: We could take another Web- Questionnaire.
(23:41:55) danbri_: another thing you often here in WGs is "can you live with?" or "are there any objections?"
(23:41:57) tpa: ??: we don't need to vote on everything
(23:42:08) hhalpin_: So, we want to reach consensus on everything.
(23:42:15) tpa: .. only vote when there is no consensus, objections, etc.
(23:42:21) hhalpin_: In general, yes.
(23:42:37) hhalpin_: Resorting to vote only when consensus seems unable to be reached.
(23:42:54) danbri_: well, right now we just a bunch of people trying to create a new group
(23:43:02) danbri_: so there is no formal consensus binding us
(23:43:07) danbri_: even XGs are pretty informal
(23:43:09) hhalpin_: "PROPOSAL: XXXX"
(23:43:24) ***FabGandon chairs have a huge power : they choose to phrase the questions either as "do you agree... ?" or "is there an objection... ?" and each one leads to very different results ;-)
(23:43:26) hhalpin_: otherwise, since there's no objection.
(23:43:28) danbri_: we can invent ways of working that suit us, but doing it W3C style will help with fitting into the wider W3C scene, progression to WG status, etc
(23:43:41) hhalpin_: Some groups have basically no telecons - HTML5 :)
(23:43:47) miquel: that's fine, that's fine
(23:44:03) bblfish: from IETF atom group, mailing list votes get very confusing, because there are so many emails that end up in the box
(23:44:07) tpa: renato: which w3c members would be sponsors?
(23:44:17) DKA: Vodafone will be a sponsor [spoken also as AC member]
(23:44:19) FabGandon: INRIA would be supporting that XG
(23:44:27) danbri_: re sponsors, I am checking with VU Uni Amsterdam (where I work half-time). I expect VU to support the charter, and hope I can have time to chase that.
(23:44:29) tpa: .. companies need to be aware of whether or not they'll be asked before the fact
(23:44:39) tpa: .. who would be willing to sponsor the XG?
(23:44:58) renato: NICTA
(23:45:05) DKA: We will also be happy to chair a f2f meeting this year in London or Dusseldorf.
(23:45:13) hhalpin_: University of Edinburgh
(23:45:19) bblfish: (( If needed Sun Microsystems, but I am very overworked ))
(23:45:20) hhalpin_: We also have a huge list from.
(23:45:29) danbri_: I think Uni Bristol / ILRT might be interested, i can poke
(23:45:30) AlexPassant: DERI will support as well
(23:45:31) CaptSolo: DERI would be supporting the XG
(23:45:41) hhalpin_: Adding SUN would be good if Eduardo agrees.
(23:45:42) CaptSolo: AlexPassant :)
(23:45:50) danbri_: bblfish, Sun would be great. And good to show diverse industry support, not just university
(23:45:59) danbri_: Asemantics SRL in Italy too
(23:46:13) danbri_: yes what cperey says, ... showing lots is good
(23:46:14) hhalpin_: We will eventually probably making a gambit to turn this into one or more WGs, so the stronger the initiating members the better.
(23:46:25) danbri_: I can ask BBC too, they are sometimes slow moving but doing a lot in this area
(23:46:32) hhalpin_: But we can set a week deadline for getting in touch with AC reps.
(23:46:34) tpa: christine: having more than the minimum of sponsors is helpful in showing the W3C this effort is serious and gather a lot of support from diverse sources
(23:46:36) DKA: thanks all!
(23:46:40) hhalpin_: Thanks Christine!
(23:46:45) tpa: christine: thanks everybody for being on this call
(23:46:51) tpa: christine: move to adjourn
(23:46:52) hhalpin_: Also, note that we will not list non-W3C members on charter member sponsorship :(
(23:46:53) danbri_: thanks christine!
(23:46:58) FabGandon: bonne nuit
(23:46:58) Zakim: - +1.314.683.aabb
(23:46:59) DKA a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: Quit)
(23:46:59) miquel: yeap, thanks
(23:46:59) hhalpin_: Sorry, that's just bureaucracy.
(23:47:00) Zakim: - +1.510.931.aall
(23:47:00) Zakim: -??P9
(23:47:01) cperey: htank you!
(23:47:02) Zakim: - +95201aaee
(23:47:02) ***tpa how do I close this?
(23:47:03) CaptSolo: thanks
(23:47:05) miquel: Cristine, special thanks, good job :)
(23:47:05) Zakim: - +1.617.848.aakk
(23:47:07) Zakim: -??P10
(23:47:07) Zakim: -DKA
(23:47:07) AlexPassant: thanks cperey and all
(23:47:07) CaptSolo a quitté le salon
(23:47:08) Zakim: -hhalpin
(23:47:09) Zakim: - +49.173.515.aaii
(23:47:10) hhalpin_: But they will be listed separately.
(23:47:11) Zakim: -[IPcaller]
(23:47:13) Zakim: - +49.621.629.aaff
(23:47:16) Zakim: -alepas
(23:47:16) hhalpin_: So that all endorsers are known.
(23:47:18) cperey: my pleasure
(23:47:19) hhalpin_: This helps the group appear larger.
(23:47:25) AlbertoSanJose: Thanks all!
(23:47:27) Archives arrêtées. Les nouveaux messages de cette conversation ne seront pas archivés.
(23:47:27) cperey: great to have such a large group
(23:47:28) hhalpin_: to reflect its true size and diversity.
(23:47:33) julianpye: thank you and good night/ good morning!
(23:47:41) hhalpin_: Most of the procedural questions can be dealt with at the next telecon.
(23:47:57) hhalpin_: i.e. task forces, whose interestd in what, better introductions, etc.
(23:48:43) tpa: Is there anything to do to close the Scribe function?
(23:48:47) julianpye a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: CGI:IRC (EOF))
(23:48:59) cperey a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: cperey)
(23:49:07) FabGandon: no the RRSAgent wasn't invited
(23:49:16) tpa: FabGandon: thanks
(23:49:18) danbri_: thank everyone
(23:49:26) danbri_: does someone have a complete transcript to send to the list?
(23:49:36) FabGandon: I'll do that
(23:50:04) AlbertoSanJose a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: AlbertoSanJose)
(23:50:20) Zakim: -FabGandon
(23:50:21) Zakim: INC_(Social Web)4:00PM has ended
(23:50:22) Zakim: Attendees were +1.314.683.aabb, +33.9.52.01.aacc, DKA, +39.011.aadd, +95201aaee, +49.621.629.aaff, +1.207.370.aagg, Gez_Lemon, +1.425.865.aahh, +49.173.515.aaii, Libby_Miller,
(23:50:22) renato a quitté le salon (quit: Quit: renato)
(23:50:27) Zakim: ... alepas, BenG?, +1.201.982.aajj, +1.617.848.aakk, FabGandon, +1.510.931.aall, hhalpin, +1.416.648.aamm, danbri, [IPcaller], +1.201.982.aann